Thread replies: 15
Thread images: 5
Thread images: 5
Anonymous
Which country was pivotal in winning WWII? 2017-07-23 02:03:28 Post No. 3128417
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Which country was pivotal in winning WWII? 2017-07-23 02:03:28 Post No. 3128417
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: article-1229643-074D175C000005DC-589_468x293.jpg (57KB, 468x293px) Image search:
[Google]
57KB, 468x293px
In my opinion it was Britain.
What people forget is that wars are often won before the treaties have been signed. Sure, there are some blue-moon events, where a sudden battle turns to tide - but ultimately wars are won before they've properly ended.
WWII is no different, and from my understanding, the war was won in 1941.
You see, during 1939, Germany was on the offensive - in fact, they were rapidly on the offensive; they secured most of Europe with their 'revolutionary' new tactics, Blitzkrieg.
That being said, in 1941 that all changed.
By 1941 Britain singlehandedly had conquered most of North Africa, mainly because the Germans relied on the Italians too much, and by the time they stepped in it was too late.
Now, America did take part in the final battles of North Africa, such as Operation Torch, but by the Second Battle of El Alamein, North Africa had already been secured (I like to think OP: Torch as the cherry on the top of North Africa; sweeping away the Nazi dust).
With North Africa secured by Britain, Germany had to go on the defensive; we were knocking on their Europa fortress.
Now, North Africa wasn't only strategic because it was bordered between Europe, and because it led to the med. but it was also useful because it had oil fields; oil fields, Hitler desperately needed to sustain his crude war machine.
However, fortunately for Adolf, there were some oil fields in Russia... putting 2 and 2 together, it's clear Russia's entrance into the war was mainly spurred on by the Axis needing new oil fields to exploit (yes Hitler would have taken over Russia, but not when he was fighting Britain and now America).
(1/2)
>>
Also, I think it's important to understand that the Antipodeans were pivotal in forcing Japan's hand in declaring war with America.
Whilst, it's true Japan always wanted to take American lands in the Pacific, they weren't stupid enough to do so whilst they were fighting the British Empire; however, consistent and powerful attacks on Japanese waters and islands by the ANZACs led Japan to conquer new lands to replace those lost to them, and to use against the ANZACs; fortunately, these 'new lands' were under American jurisdiction, which led Japan with the only possible option: attack America, and attack her naval capabilities as soon as possible.
So, to conclude - it's of my opinion that Britain - and her Empire - won the war for two reasons: it threatened the Axis so much that they had to attack other nations, and it had turned the war from the Axis conquering to the Axis defending.
(2/2)
>>
America and Russia
>>
>>3128482
Reason being?
>>
File: 1486567142758.jpg (41KB, 781x601px) Image search:
[Google]
41KB, 781x601px
>>3128417
Britain was pivotal in starting the fucking thing, not ending it, holy shit.
>>
File: 1478154379240.jpg (89KB, 1200x654px) Image search:
[Google]
89KB, 1200x654px
>>3128417
>in my opinion it was britain
LMAO the Anglos actually believe this
>>
>>
>>3128417
"Pivotal" as opposed to "instrumental" I can accept.
Britain was the turning of the doorknob, but the one who pulled the door were the Americans and Soviets.
Thoughts?
>>
File: british military history.jpg (480KB, 1294x3932px) Image search:
[Google]
480KB, 1294x3932px
>>3128417
>>3128418
t.Lidybeige
>>
File: DpQ9YJl.png (21KB, 700x700px) Image search:
[Google]
21KB, 700x700px
>>3128496
>s-sure take it, j-just don't take anything else, okay?
>fair warning
If Germany got a good bitchslap in 38, there would be literally no WWII.
>>
>>3128518
That was a fair warning, and we did say we would declare war if he broke that agreement.
It's not my fault that the Germans were warmongers.
>>
>>3128511
The Soviets could have only won with American and British goods, and the Americans could have only won because of British espionage and troops.
It was a symbiotic alliance created and led - although not obviously led - by Britain.
>>
>>3128418
>Whilst, it's true Japan always wanted to take American lands in the Pacific, they weren't stupid enough to do so whilst they were fighting the British Empire; however, consistent and powerful attacks on Japanese waters and islands by the ANZACs led Japan to conquer new lands to replace those lost to them, and to use against the ANZACs; fortunately, these 'new lands' were under American jurisdiction, which led Japan with the only possible option: attack America, and attack her naval capabilities as soon as possible.
Are you retarded? Japan attacked the USA at the same time as the UK and commonwealth.
>>
I think all nations played a part and were pivotal
The Allies won the war through combined effort against the Facist Axis powers, Britain did her part as did the Poles, Americans, Soviets, Ukrainians, Dutch, etc.
Anyone who resisted the Germans their allies in my books were pivotal to winning the war. It was a global war where there was no "winner" and never a decisive victory. I bet if I asked what was the most decisive action of the war, I would get various conflicting answers. Its like asking what year the Axis lost the war, you have a case for saying basically every year from 1939 to 1945
>>
>>3128491
Haha i bet OP just watched dunkirk
Thread posts: 15
Thread images: 5
Thread images: 5